Thats a bad argument, which only intention is to strangle and end the discussion.

The fact that some art can be worth more just because of a name says more than enough about it, just like the picture this thread is about. But how do you understand it, or better yet, interpret it? And this step is not something you can do wrong, you just might be "lucky" and see the same thing the photographer saw and thought. You might even see something more "relevant" than what the artist initially thought. It still just ends up in the diversity of human emotion, and to the land of lets not necessarily make sense, but to try sound smart!

I am not referring to art in general, but to pictures of this sort who are vague in what they are trying to express. Political art for example where provocation is the goal is usually an entirely different story.

The interesting thing is that the image was much-processed. The original photo shows a factory and trees across the river. This was shot on film, originally, so removing the factory and trees was not a mere matter of cloning some cloudy sky to cover it all. Moreover, it is a huge print, something like twelve feet wide. So, I can appreciate that quite some amount of pre-digital-era work went into it.

I find it to be a pleasing image. Of course, I can appreciate a drive across the Great Plains of the USA, with no car stereo to interrupt the peace and quiet. Simplicity can be a good thing.

First, do we like the picture, regardless of the artist and background? For me, it's okay, but nothing that special viewed online here, but assuming it's like Gursky's other prints and is actually massive in real-life, then it would obviously have a much greater impact. Likewise with Mark Rothko's paintings: pretty good viewed at 500 pixels, but awesome when seen in person.

Secondly, do we know and like the artist? As we all know, some artists can command higher prices than others. So it's not that work-of-art XX is necessarily 'worth' XX, but that something by that artist might be. Personally speaking I really like Gursky's work - not so much this one, but many others. But again, the real value of them is seeing these massive high quality prints in person.

Third, the classic argument of 'I could have done that' which is applied to almost all modern, non-classical art. The thing is, you didn't do it. Anyone who thinks they can do this sort of thing should go and do this sort of thing. I'm not saying you can't do it, indeed many of us can. I'm saying most of us simply don't do it, and there's a big difference.

Try taking some photos like this and blowing them up absolutely huge. Make sure you also shoot them on large format film like Gursky, none of your small format digital here. Now try and get them exhibited. Now spend years doing that until you are well-known for that particular style.

Of course you can't just copy this and be successful, you have to think of your own original style and angle, and one which will be popular with the current zeitgeist and or art critics.

It's actually not that easy to be successful at this sort of thing, so I applaud anyone who puts in the effort and actually tries, whether they get recognised or not.

Finally there's the aspect of value. You may not think it's worth xx million, but someone did, so that's what it's worth.